DRI Today - Legal Research, Law Blog and Magazine Archives - Sports LawDRI’s flagship publication for over 40 years, is a national, monthly publication that contains original writings on topics of professional interest to lawyers and others concerned with the defense of civil actions.http://dritoday.org/
http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specificationBlogEngine.NET 1.6.1.0en-GBhttp://dritoday.org/opml.axdhttp://www.dritoday.org/syndication.axdDRIDRI Today - Legal Research, Law Blog and Magazine Archives0.0000000.000000Manziel’s Precedent: Can Current NCAA Players Collect Damages from the EA Sports Settlement Without Risking Eligibility?<p>Last Thursday, EA Sports and College Licensing Company reached a <strong><a href="http://www.sports-law.blogspot.com/2013/09/ed-obannon-reaches-proposed-settlement.html" target="_blank">preliminary settlement</a> </strong>in the "Ed O&rsquo;Bannon" class action lawsuit over the use of college athletes' names, images, and likenesses. &nbsp;The terms of the settlement have not been disclosed, but reports suggest that the figure could be upwards of $50 million. &nbsp;Not surprisingly, EA Sports announced that it will no longer produce its popular &ldquo;NCAA Football&rdquo; franchise beginning in 2014. &nbsp;If the settlement is approved, more than 100,000 former and current student-athletes may be eligible for varying amounts of compensation depending on the specifics of each class member&rsquo;s claim, including the prevalence of the individual in the game. &nbsp;&nbsp;</p>
<div>It is well known that NCAA rules prohibit student-athletes from profiting off their name while in school and violators of this rule risk the loss of NCAA eligibility (for student-athletes) and potential sanctions (for member institutions), but now, some current student-athletes are in a position to receive a damages award stemming from the commercial use of their image, even though they are still enrolled in school. &nbsp;The NCAA has thus far declined to comment on whether current student-athletes will be entitled to collect damages without risking their eligibility until after the terms of the settlement are revealed. &nbsp;However, last year, Texas A&amp;M quarterback Johnny Manziel likely set a precedent that will allow these current NCAA student-athletes to recover damages without jeopardizing their eligibility.&nbsp;</div>
<div><br /></div>
<div>In the Fall of 2012 after a series of breakout performances, Manziel trademarked his nickname &ldquo;Johnny Football.&rdquo; &nbsp;Later that same season, a vendor began selling t-shirts with the phrase<strong> <a href="http://www.keepcalmandjohnnyfootball.com/" target="_blank">&ldquo;Keep Calm and Johnny Football.&rdquo;</a></strong>&nbsp;Manziel&rsquo;s company, JMAN2 Enterprises LLC, filed a suit for damages as well as an injunction calling for the vendor to stop producing the t-shirts. &nbsp;The suit posed the question of whether a current NCAA player could be entitled to collect legal damages for the misappropriation of likeness and retain eligibility. &nbsp;The&nbsp;<a href="http://m.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Issues/2013/02/27/Marketing-and-Sponsorship/Manziel.aspx" target="_blank"><strong>NCAA ruled</strong></a> that Manziel would be entitled to retain his eligibility and recover damages provided the trademark violation was not an intentional violation aimed at funneling money to the player. &nbsp;While the O'Bannon/EA Sports case is not a trademark case, the NCAA test established in the Manziel ruling should apply because both cases center on the misappropriation of a student athlete&rsquo;s proprietary interest. &nbsp;Whereas Manziel can be awarded damages for the misappropriation of his intellectual property, current students would be entitled to compensation for the misappropriation of their names, images, and likeness. &nbsp;The NCAA has refused to comment on the ability of current student-athletes to receive settlement money, but the precedent of the Manziel ruling will make it difficult for the Association to deny student-athletes&rsquo; recovery. &nbsp;As a result, current NCAA student-athletes may be able to receive compensation from the O'Bannon/EA Sports settlement without risking their eligibility, even though they would not have otherwise been able to do so under NCAA Bylaws.&nbsp;</div>
<div><br /></div>
<div>This blog was originally posted on Wednesday, October 2. <a href="http://sports-law.blogspot.com/" target="_blank"><strong>Click here</strong></a> to read the original post.&nbsp;</div>
<div><br /></div>
<!-- AddThis button extension by Mayank Raichura -->
<!-- AddThis Button BEGIN -->
<div stype="padding: 5px;">
<script type="text/javascript">
var addthis_pub="blogengineextensionaddthis";
</script>
<a href="http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20" onmouseover="return addthis_open(this, '', 'http://dritoday.org/post/Manziele28099s-Precedent-Can-Current-NCAA-Players-Collect-Damages-from-the-EA-Sports-Settlement-Without-Risking-Eligibility.aspx', 'Manziel’s Precedent: Can Current NCAA Players Collect Damages from the EA Sports Settlement Without Risking Eligibility?')" onmouseout="addthis_close()" onclick="return addthis_sendto()"><img src="http://s7.addthis.com/static/btn/sm-share-en.gif" height="16" alt="Bookmark and Share" style="border:0"/></a>
<script type="text/javascript" src="http://s7.addthis.com/js/200/addthis_widget.js"></script>
</div>
<!-- AddThis Button END -->
http://dritoday.org/post/Manziele28099s-Precedent-Can-Current-NCAA-Players-Collect-Damages-from-the-EA-Sports-Settlement-Without-Risking-Eligibility.aspx
Tim Epsteinhttp://dritoday.org/post/Manziele28099s-Precedent-Can-Current-NCAA-Players-Collect-Damages-from-the-EA-Sports-Settlement-Without-Risking-Eligibility.aspx#commenthttp://dritoday.org/post.aspx?id=bec95b7e-853b-4dfc-8264-3a802bac8e63Thu, 03 Oct 2013 07:16:00 -1100Sports LawTim Epsteinhttp://dritoday.org/pingback.axdhttp://dritoday.org/post.aspx?id=bec95b7e-853b-4dfc-8264-3a802bac8e632676http://dritoday.org/trackback.axd?id=bec95b7e-853b-4dfc-8264-3a802bac8e63http://dritoday.org/post/Manziele28099s-Precedent-Can-Current-NCAA-Players-Collect-Damages-from-the-EA-Sports-Settlement-Without-Risking-Eligibility.aspx#commenthttp://dritoday.org/syndication.axd?post=bec95b7e-853b-4dfc-8264-3a802bac8e63NFL, Players Reach Concussion Agreement<p>While the $765 million proposed settlement is a considerable sum of money, a final judgment figure would possibly have greatly exceeded this dollar amount; not to mention legal fees and expert costs to get there, along with continued acrimony between necessary business partners (NFL players and the League) related to the MDL. &nbsp;The proposed settlement appears to resolve all claims in the MDL against the NFL defendants, and apply to every former NFL player who will have retired by the time the Court approves the settlement. &nbsp;At this stage, however, it appears that the litigation will continue as between the helmet manufacturers and the players.</p>
<p>For latest news regarding the settlement, <a href="http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000235494/article/settlement-reached-in-nfl-concussion-lawsuit" target="_blank"><strong>click here</strong></a>.&nbsp;</p>
<!-- AddThis button extension by Mayank Raichura -->
<!-- AddThis Button BEGIN -->
<div stype="padding: 5px;">
<script type="text/javascript">
var addthis_pub="blogengineextensionaddthis";
</script>
<a href="http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20" onmouseover="return addthis_open(this, '', 'http://dritoday.org/post/NFL-Players-Reach-Concussion-Agreement.aspx', 'NFL, Players Reach Concussion Agreement')" onmouseout="addthis_close()" onclick="return addthis_sendto()"><img src="http://s7.addthis.com/static/btn/sm-share-en.gif" height="16" alt="Bookmark and Share" style="border:0"/></a>
<script type="text/javascript" src="http://s7.addthis.com/js/200/addthis_widget.js"></script>
</div>
<!-- AddThis Button END -->
http://dritoday.org/post/NFL-Players-Reach-Concussion-Agreement.aspx
Tim Epsteinhttp://dritoday.org/post/NFL-Players-Reach-Concussion-Agreement.aspx#commenthttp://dritoday.org/post.aspx?id=91d3bca4-c2fc-49fa-9559-b759be47c895Fri, 30 Aug 2013 02:45:00 -1100Law SuitSports LawTim Epsteinhttp://dritoday.org/pingback.axdhttp://dritoday.org/post.aspx?id=91d3bca4-c2fc-49fa-9559-b759be47c895190http://dritoday.org/trackback.axd?id=91d3bca4-c2fc-49fa-9559-b759be47c895http://dritoday.org/post/NFL-Players-Reach-Concussion-Agreement.aspx#commenthttp://dritoday.org/syndication.axd?post=91d3bca4-c2fc-49fa-9559-b759be47c895Judge Orders NFL and Former Players to Mediate Concussion Claims<p>On Monday, July, 8 2013 a Pennsylvania federal judge ordered a mass of NFL concussion cases to <strong><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/09/sports/football/judge-orders-nfl-concussion-case-to-mediation.html?_r=2&amp;" target="_blank">mediation</a>.</strong> &nbsp;The cases were brought by more than 4,000 former National Football League (NFL) players accusing the league of <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-09/nfl-ex-players-ordered-to-mediation-in-concussion-cases.html" target="_blank"><strong>negligence</strong></a> and concealing the dangers of concussions. &nbsp;The players say the league has known for years, or even decades about the long-term dangers of concussions. &nbsp;The league responded that it released warnings based on the medical research available at the time.</p>
<div>The NFL filed motions to dismiss the cases in which it <a href="http://articles.philly.com/2013-07-09/news/40471942_1_phillips-nfl-concussion-case-mediator" target="_blank"><strong>denied</strong></a> wrongdoing and stated that player safety is governed by the collective bargaining agreement. &nbsp;The league contends the parties negotiated those terms and the issue is to be resolved in a confidential arbitration. &nbsp;The players argue that the concealment was fraud and was not contemplated by the collective bargaining agreement.</div>
<div><br /></div>
<div>U.S. District Judge Anita Brody originally planned to rule on the motion to dismiss on July 22, 2013. &nbsp;However, she now says she will not rule on the motion until at least early September. &nbsp;The judge says this will give the mediator time to bring the sides closer together. &nbsp;Layn Phillips, a retired federal judge, has been appointed as the mediator. &nbsp;Phillips cannot make a <a href="http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000216763/article/federal-judge-orders-mediation-in-nfl-concussions-case" target="_blank"><strong>binding</strong></a> decision, and any side can choose to stop whenever it wants; however, the judge hopes the continued negotiations will result in a settlement. &nbsp;</div>
<div><br /></div>
<div>First, Phillips will meet with both sides&rsquo; counsel to hear the arguments on each side. &nbsp;Then he will go back and forth with each side individually to try and strike a deal that works for both parties. &nbsp;When Phillips reports back to the judge on September 3, 2013, he can recommend going back to court or ask for more time to negotiate.</div>
<div><br /></div>
<div>Neither side commented on the decision. &nbsp;The judge ordered the sides to refrain from publically discussing the mediation. &nbsp;</div>
<div><br /></div>
<div>Some<strong> <a href="http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000216763/article/federal-judge-orders-mediation-in-nfl-concussions-case" target="_blank">commentators</a></strong> think the order to mediate is a signal that the case has a chance to settle. &nbsp;Settling could prevent the NFL from turning over records that may harm its public image. &nbsp;Additionally, it would save a lot of time and expensive litigation because the suit could drag on for years.</div>
<div><br /></div>
<div>Yet, there are still those that have their doubts. &nbsp;Gabriel Feldman, the director of the Sports Law Program at Tulane University said, &ldquo;[i]t will be a great feat for the mediator to settle the case. He might bring them closer, but to what? This is complex litigation.&rdquo; &nbsp;He would be &ldquo;surprised at this earl a stage for the N.F.L. to give a large settlement.&rdquo;</div>
<div><br /></div>
<div>We will have to wait until September 3 to see what happens. &nbsp;The case is In re National Football League Players' Concussion Injury Litigation, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, No. 12-2323.</div>
<div><br /></div>
<!-- AddThis button extension by Mayank Raichura -->
<!-- AddThis Button BEGIN -->
<div stype="padding: 5px;">
<script type="text/javascript">
var addthis_pub="blogengineextensionaddthis";
</script>
<a href="http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20" onmouseover="return addthis_open(this, '', 'http://dritoday.org/post/Judge-Orders-NFL-and-Former-Players-to-Mediate-Concussion-Claims.aspx', 'Judge Orders NFL and Former Players to Mediate Concussion Claims')" onmouseout="addthis_close()" onclick="return addthis_sendto()"><img src="http://s7.addthis.com/static/btn/sm-share-en.gif" height="16" alt="Bookmark and Share" style="border:0"/></a>
<script type="text/javascript" src="http://s7.addthis.com/js/200/addthis_widget.js"></script>
</div>
<!-- AddThis Button END -->
http://dritoday.org/post/Judge-Orders-NFL-and-Former-Players-to-Mediate-Concussion-Claims.aspx
Joseph M. Hannahttp://dritoday.org/post/Judge-Orders-NFL-and-Former-Players-to-Mediate-Concussion-Claims.aspx#commenthttp://dritoday.org/post.aspx?id=835b5b2c-4655-4da7-b327-4d9e168d70bcWed, 10 Jul 2013 02:47:00 -1100Law SuitMedical LiabilitySports LawJoseph M. Hannahttp://dritoday.org/pingback.axdhttp://dritoday.org/post.aspx?id=835b5b2c-4655-4da7-b327-4d9e168d70bc3http://dritoday.org/trackback.axd?id=835b5b2c-4655-4da7-b327-4d9e168d70bchttp://dritoday.org/post/Judge-Orders-NFL-and-Former-Players-to-Mediate-Concussion-Claims.aspx#commenthttp://dritoday.org/syndication.axd?post=835b5b2c-4655-4da7-b327-4d9e168d70bcNFL Teams Up with GE to Fund New Concussion Research<p><span style="color: #3d3c3c; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 22px; text-align: justify;">On March 11, 2013, the National Football League and the General Electric Co. announced that they are teaming up to create a Head Health Initiative that will provide $60 million dollars to assist leading neurologists in researching traumatic brain injuries and developing technology able to monitor these ailments.&nbsp; $40 million will go towards developing imaging technologies, and the remaining $20 million will be available to others who seek to prevent, identify, and develop treatments for brain injuries.&nbsp; Athletic apparel company Under Armour will also be providing $5 million dollars in support for the cause.</span></p>
<p style="border: 0px; margin: 15px 0px; padding: 0px; font-size: 13px; color: #3d3c3c; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 22px; text-align: justify;">Jeff Immelt, GE Chairman and CEO, indicated that scientific support for the research would be top-notch.&nbsp; &ldquo;We&rsquo;re trying to do this with the best minds anywhere in the world,&rdquo; he noted in a news conference.&nbsp; He declared that the funds would utilize GE&rsquo;s expertise in sophisticated diagnostic imaging technology to increase general scientific knowledge on brain functions, noting &ldquo;With this initiative, we will advance our research and apply our learning to sports-related concussions, brain injuries suffered by members of the military and neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer&rsquo;s and Parkinson&rsquo;s.&nbsp; Advancing brain science will help families everywhere.&rdquo;</p>
<p style="border: 0px; margin: 15px 0px; padding: 0px; font-size: 13px; color: #3d3c3c; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 22px; text-align: justify;">NFL commissioner Roger Goodell also expressed satisfaction with the initiative, stating: &ldquo;The NFL has made tremendous progress in making the game safe and more exciting.&nbsp; But we have more work to do.&nbsp; Our collaboration with GE and Under Armour . . . puts us on an accelerated path to progress . . that will benefit athletes, the military, and all members of society.&rdquo;</p>
<address>As orignally published at www.sportslawinsider.com March 13, 2013.</address>
<!-- AddThis button extension by Mayank Raichura -->
<!-- AddThis Button BEGIN -->
<div stype="padding: 5px;">
<script type="text/javascript">
var addthis_pub="blogengineextensionaddthis";
</script>
<a href="http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20" onmouseover="return addthis_open(this, '', 'http://dritoday.org/post/NFL-Teams-Up-with-GE-to-Fund-New-Concussion-Research.aspx', 'NFL Teams Up with GE to Fund New Concussion Research')" onmouseout="addthis_close()" onclick="return addthis_sendto()"><img src="http://s7.addthis.com/static/btn/sm-share-en.gif" height="16" alt="Bookmark and Share" style="border:0"/></a>
<script type="text/javascript" src="http://s7.addthis.com/js/200/addthis_widget.js"></script>
</div>
<!-- AddThis Button END -->
http://dritoday.org/post/NFL-Teams-Up-with-GE-to-Fund-New-Concussion-Research.aspx
Joseph M. Hannahttp://dritoday.org/post/NFL-Teams-Up-with-GE-to-Fund-New-Concussion-Research.aspx#commenthttp://dritoday.org/post.aspx?id=6587aa52-fcf2-47bd-85ec-38f2e95f89ccThu, 14 Mar 2013 02:59:00 -1100Defense PracticeEvidenceLaw SuitMedical LiabilityMedical MalpracticsSports LawJoseph M. Hannahttp://dritoday.org/pingback.axdhttp://dritoday.org/post.aspx?id=6587aa52-fcf2-47bd-85ec-38f2e95f89cc0http://dritoday.org/trackback.axd?id=6587aa52-fcf2-47bd-85ec-38f2e95f89cchttp://dritoday.org/post/NFL-Teams-Up-with-GE-to-Fund-New-Concussion-Research.aspx#commenthttp://dritoday.org/syndication.axd?post=6587aa52-fcf2-47bd-85ec-38f2e95f89ccUPDATE: Players Respond to NFL’s Motion to Dismiss Concussion Litigation<p><span style="color: #3d3c3c; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 22px; text-align: justify;">On October 31, 2012, lawyers representing thousands of former NFL players filed an opposition brief to the NFL&rsquo;s current motion to dismiss pending in U.S. District Court in Pennsylvania, insisting that based on the gravity of the harm incurred, their lawsuit against the League must be allowed to move forward.&nbsp; The brief rejected the NFL&rsquo;s contention that the action was essentially a labor dispute that needed to be resolved under the league&rsquo;s collective bargaining agreement.</span></p>
<p style="border: 0px; margin: 15px 0px; padding: 0px; font-size: 13px; color: #3d3c3c; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 22px; text-align: justify;">The Plaintiffs accused the NFL of &ldquo;orchestrat[ing] a disinformation campaign,&rdquo; insisting that the League &ldquo;knew that players were exposed to risks of severe neurological injuries yet did nothing to prevent them.&rdquo;&nbsp; However, the League has, time and again, publicly denied that it knew of any long-term dangers posed by concussions.&nbsp; Further, the NFL insists that it did not intentionally lie to players about the potential side effects.&nbsp; Instead, it stated that it delegated the decisions about players&rsquo; conditions and return-to-play decisions to individual team doctors and trainers.</p>
<p style="border: 0px; margin: 15px 0px; padding: 0px; font-size: 13px; color: #3d3c3c; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 22px; text-align: justify;">At this point, U.S. District Judge Anita Brody must decide how to proceed with the extremely cumbersome litigation.&nbsp; If a settlement is not reached and the case is not dismissed, it is possible that the individual cases could be returned to the multiple districts where they originated forcing the parties to proceed with separate trials.</p>
<p style="border: 0px; margin: 15px 0px; padding: 0px; font-size: 13px; color: #3d3c3c; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 22px;"><a style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; color: #bc8e14; text-decoration: initial; outline: 0px;" href="http://www.timesonline.com/sports/steelers/ex-players-reply-to-nfl-s-motion-to-dismiss-cases/article_34b797ea-a4dc-51c2-945b-dd160ac5cea5.html" target="_blank">Ex-players reply to NFL&rsquo;s motion to dismiss cases</a></p>
<div>As orrignally posted on <a href="http://sportslawinsider.com/update-players-respond-to-nfls-motion-to-dismiss-concussion-litigation/" target="_blank">Sports Law Insider</a> on November 14, 2012</div>
<!-- AddThis button extension by Mayank Raichura -->
<!-- AddThis Button BEGIN -->
<div stype="padding: 5px;">
<script type="text/javascript">
var addthis_pub="blogengineextensionaddthis";
</script>
<a href="http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20" onmouseover="return addthis_open(this, '', 'http://dritoday.org/post/UPDATE-Players-Respond-to-NFLe28099s-Motion-to-Dismiss-Concussion-Litigation.aspx', 'UPDATE: Players Respond to NFL’s Motion to Dismiss Concussion Litigation')" onmouseout="addthis_close()" onclick="return addthis_sendto()"><img src="http://s7.addthis.com/static/btn/sm-share-en.gif" height="16" alt="Bookmark and Share" style="border:0"/></a>
<script type="text/javascript" src="http://s7.addthis.com/js/200/addthis_widget.js"></script>
</div>
<!-- AddThis Button END -->
http://dritoday.org/post/UPDATE-Players-Respond-to-NFLe28099s-Motion-to-Dismiss-Concussion-Litigation.aspx
Joseph M. Hannahttp://dritoday.org/post/UPDATE-Players-Respond-to-NFLe28099s-Motion-to-Dismiss-Concussion-Litigation.aspx#commenthttp://dritoday.org/post.aspx?id=aef553fb-36ca-4e59-af87-0f81d1391701Mon, 19 Nov 2012 02:23:00 -1100ADRDefense PracticeHealth Care LawInsurance IndustryInsurance LawLaw SuitMedical LiabilitySports LawJoseph M. Hannahttp://dritoday.org/pingback.axdhttp://dritoday.org/post.aspx?id=aef553fb-36ca-4e59-af87-0f81d13917010http://dritoday.org/trackback.axd?id=aef553fb-36ca-4e59-af87-0f81d1391701http://dritoday.org/post/UPDATE-Players-Respond-to-NFLe28099s-Motion-to-Dismiss-Concussion-Litigation.aspx#commenthttp://dritoday.org/syndication.axd?post=aef553fb-36ca-4e59-af87-0f81d1391701NCAA Sends Mixed Signals with New Enforcement Program<p><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;">On Tuesday October 30th, the NCAA Board of Directors announced the adoption of a new enforcement structure that, among other things, creates additional levels of infractions, enhances accountability for head coaches, and seeks to punish violators with sanctions that more appropriately align with the actions that occurred.&nbsp; The most striking of these new initiatives, to be implemented beginning in August of 2013, is the creation of the new four-tiered structure for violation classification.&nbsp;</span><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;">&nbsp;</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;">Under the current model, violations are classified as either major or secondary.&nbsp; The new system sets forth violations as follows: Level I, Severe breach of conduct; Level II, Significant breach of conduct; Level III, Breach of conduct; and Level IV, Incidental issues.&nbsp; A copy of the NCAA&rsquo;s press release may be found&nbsp;</span><a style="text-decoration: initial; font-family: arial, helvetica; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;" href="http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/ncaa/resources/latest+news/2012/october/board+adopts+tougher+more+efficient+enforcement+program" target="_blank">here</a><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;">.&nbsp; This new structure is the product of a year-long effort by the thirteen-member Board comprised of presidents, athletic directors, and conference commissioners.&nbsp;&nbsp; President Mark Emmert described the changes as part of a devotion to &ldquo;protecting the collegiate model,&rdquo; in part by &ldquo;remov[ing] the &lsquo;risk-reward&rsquo; analysis that has tempted people.&rdquo; &nbsp;&nbsp;</span><br /><br style="font-family: arial, helvetica; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;" /><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;">These changes come on the heels of increasing external pressure for a more consistent and transparent process, with a number of major infractions cases serving as the backdrop for this magnified criticism.&nbsp;&nbsp; Greater accountability and stricter sanctions is undoubtedly a step in the right direction when it comes to enforcement of what would be considered major infractions under the current framework.&nbsp; The NCAA should be applauded for taking measures to ensure consequences for coaches who plead ignorance while violations blatantly occur on their watches.&nbsp; But at the same time, the new violation structure is troublesome.&nbsp;&nbsp; Despite admirable efforts to construct a better system, this new four-tiered structure for violation classification fails to ameliorate many of the common concerns expressed with respect to NCAA Bylaws and enforcement of the same.&nbsp; Hopefully, this will be cleared-up with the upcoming changes to the substantive &ldquo;rules&rdquo; in the Bylaws.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><br style="font-family: arial, helvetica; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;" /><br style="font-family: arial, helvetica; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;" /><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;">The NCAA Bylaws are often denounced as too lengthy and too complex, and deservedly so.&nbsp; Moving from a two-tiered violation structure to a four-tiered system, if not matched-up with more common sense in rule substance, is an obvious step backward, and is counterintuitive if the desired outcome is a more workable framework.&nbsp; Increased confusion is even more likely when one considers the near endless interpretations that could be attributed to the definitions describing each tier.&nbsp; For example, consider the difference between a violation that &ldquo;threatens the integrity of the NCAA,&rdquo; versus a violation that merely &ldquo;provides more than a minimal, but less than a substantial&hellip;advantage.&rdquo;&nbsp; One definition classifies a Level I violation, while the other corresponds with Level II, but is there really a difference?&nbsp;&nbsp; The definitions may mean something different to a coach versus someone in compliance at a school or enforcement at the NCAA, so how then is the goal of deterrence met for the problem that President Emmert describes as a calculation of risk vs. reward made by coaches who currently do not have sufficient risk to their livelihoods or respective programs.</span><br style="font-family: arial, helvetica; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;" /><br style="font-family: arial, helvetica; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;" /><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;">Under this system, inconsistencies may abound to an even greater degree than under the current model.&nbsp; This is likely to complicate the NCAA&rsquo;s investigative measures, which is problematic given the Association&rsquo;s already limited resources; resources so limited that some have even suggested that the NCAA get out of the enforcement business altogether (for a more in depth discussion of this proposal, see&nbsp;</span><a style="text-decoration: initial; font-family: arial, helvetica; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;" href="http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2012/10/the-ncaa-needs-to-let-someone-else-enforce-its-rules/264012/" target="_blank">this well-done piece</a><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;">&nbsp;by Attorney Stephen A. Miller, recently published in The Atlantic).&nbsp; Finally, if the NCAA is really student-athlete first, then this measure does nothing to address the countless Bylaws that punish student-athletes for technical violations that provide no competitive advantage, and do little more than burden an already overwhelmed enforcement staff.&nbsp; Again, it is worth pondering, is an &ldquo;incidental issue&rdquo; even worth sanctioning?&nbsp; I hope that reforms not just in terms of a scholarship enhancement, but in terms of rules affecting student-athletes&rsquo; behavior on a day-to-day basis are addressed in the coming months.</span><br style="font-family: arial, helvetica; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;" /><br style="font-family: arial, helvetica; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;" /><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;">Since the NCAA has chosen to divert its attention first to the method in which these intricate and often superfluous regulations are classified, my worry is that dealing with the substance later will lead to a continuance in seeing violations shoe-horned into a rigid framework that sometimes, but does not always fit.&nbsp; For those that desire more consistency in results, do you want the NCAA to have something akin to Federal Sentencing Guidelines, or more common sense in results?&nbsp; I am not yet convinced that the new enforcement structure will get us more common sense in results, which many (myself included) would like to see as opposed to more rigidity.</span><br style="font-family: arial, helvetica; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;" /><br style="font-family: arial, helvetica; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;" /><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;">Over time, perhaps this will prove to be a positive step toward a streamlined, consistent, and fair process.&nbsp; For now though, a more detailed systemization of the NCAA&rsquo;s enforcement structure only seems to complicate matters further if there is not significant overhaul to the substance of the rules themselves.&nbsp; While my experiences may leave me a bit biased, until we see a comprehensive reassessment of the actual Bylaw language (promised in the next few months), I foresee this self-proclaimed &ldquo;overhaul&rdquo; as little more than a re-branding exercise.</span><br style="font-family: arial, helvetica; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;" /><br style="font-family: arial, helvetica; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;" /><em style="font-family: arial, helvetica; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;">Originally published on <a href="http://www.sports-law.blogspot.com/2012/11/ncaa-sends-mixed-signals-with-new.html" target="_blank">Sportslawblog</a> *Hat tip to Brian Konkel for his work on this piece.</em></p>
<!-- AddThis button extension by Mayank Raichura -->
<!-- AddThis Button BEGIN -->
<div stype="padding: 5px;">
<script type="text/javascript">
var addthis_pub="blogengineextensionaddthis";
</script>
<a href="http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20" onmouseover="return addthis_open(this, '', 'http://dritoday.org/post/NCAA-Sends-Mixed-Signals-with-New-Enforcement-Program.aspx', 'NCAA Sends Mixed Signals with New Enforcement Program')" onmouseout="addthis_close()" onclick="return addthis_sendto()"><img src="http://s7.addthis.com/static/btn/sm-share-en.gif" height="16" alt="Bookmark and Share" style="border:0"/></a>
<script type="text/javascript" src="http://s7.addthis.com/js/200/addthis_widget.js"></script>
</div>
<!-- AddThis Button END -->
http://dritoday.org/post/NCAA-Sends-Mixed-Signals-with-New-Enforcement-Program.aspx
Tim Epsteinhttp://dritoday.org/post/NCAA-Sends-Mixed-Signals-with-New-Enforcement-Program.aspx#commenthttp://dritoday.org/post.aspx?id=9684c3af-f223-45f6-8d0d-0cfae82d8dedThu, 08 Nov 2012 02:15:00 -1100Bad FaithCommercial LitigationDefense PracticeDiscoveryFederal RegulationsSports LawTim Epsteinhttp://dritoday.org/pingback.axdhttp://dritoday.org/post.aspx?id=9684c3af-f223-45f6-8d0d-0cfae82d8ded0http://dritoday.org/trackback.axd?id=9684c3af-f223-45f6-8d0d-0cfae82d8dedhttp://dritoday.org/post/NCAA-Sends-Mixed-Signals-with-New-Enforcement-Program.aspx#commenthttp://dritoday.org/syndication.axd?post=9684c3af-f223-45f6-8d0d-0cfae82d8dedNFL Attempts to Keep Insurance Coverage Dispute in California<p>The National Football League recently filed a motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed by Alterra America Insurance Co. in New York State Supreme Court, arguing that the excess insurer did not have the requisite standing to add additional insurers as parties to its New York action, since the NFL is already pursing an action against them in California.</p>
<div>The current dispute arose out of the massive insurance coverage obligations dispute between the NFL, NFL Properties LLC, and a host of primary and additional insurers, which began after the league was hit with a class action lawsuit by over 3,000 former players. &nbsp;In the class action suit, the former players accuse the NFL of downplaying the risks of player concussions, causing many now-retired NFL alumni to experience degenerative mental diseases and later-life cognitive decline.</div>
<div><br /></div>
<div>The jurisdictional dispute between the NFL and Alterra is basically a result of timing. &nbsp;Alterra filed a suit against the league to determine its coverage obligations in New York court just two days before the NFL filed suit against 32 insurers in California state court. &nbsp;Alterra then amended its complaint in an attempt to drag those other insurers into the New York case.</div>
<div><br /></div>
<div>The NFL&rsquo;s motion states that most of the insurance contracts at issue &ldquo;are between the NFL policyholders and other insurers, making Alterra a complete stranger and not entitled to the relief it requests.&rdquo; &nbsp;It went on to note that the lead defendant in the California (Fireman&rsquo;s Fund Insurance Co.) was a California corporation, headquartered in California, and further, that multiple other claims representatives for different primary insurers are headquartered in California as well. &nbsp;Lastly, the league noted that Alterra&rsquo;s lawsuit was premature, as its excess policy did not &ldquo;kick in&rdquo; until the league&rsquo;s primary insurers paid out $51 million in damages. &nbsp;Added together, the NFL believes that these factors dictate that the matter should be decided in California, not New York.</div>
<div><br /></div>
<div>Joseph M. Hanna is a partner of Goldberg Segalla and owner of the &ldquo;Sports and Entertainment Law Insider&rdquo; <a href="http://sportslawinsider.com/" target="_blank">blog</a>. You can read his original post <a href="http://sportslawinsider.com/author-fails-in-avatar-copyright-suit-against-cameron-and-fox/" target="_blank">here</a>.&nbsp;</div>
<div><br /></div>
<!-- AddThis button extension by Mayank Raichura -->
<!-- AddThis Button BEGIN -->
<div stype="padding: 5px;">
<script type="text/javascript">
var addthis_pub="blogengineextensionaddthis";
</script>
<a href="http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20" onmouseover="return addthis_open(this, '', 'http://dritoday.org/post/NFL-Attempts-to-Keep-Insurance-Coverage-Dispute-in-California.aspx', 'NFL Attempts to Keep Insurance Coverage Dispute in California')" onmouseout="addthis_close()" onclick="return addthis_sendto()"><img src="http://s7.addthis.com/static/btn/sm-share-en.gif" height="16" alt="Bookmark and Share" style="border:0"/></a>
<script type="text/javascript" src="http://s7.addthis.com/js/200/addthis_widget.js"></script>
</div>
<!-- AddThis Button END -->
http://dritoday.org/post/NFL-Attempts-to-Keep-Insurance-Coverage-Dispute-in-California.aspx
Joseph M. Hannahttp://dritoday.org/post/NFL-Attempts-to-Keep-Insurance-Coverage-Dispute-in-California.aspx#commenthttp://dritoday.org/post.aspx?id=eb86a38d-7b7a-4875-be2e-7b0608a46fddFri, 21 Sep 2012 05:36:00 -1100Insurance LawSports LawJoseph M. Hannahttp://dritoday.org/pingback.axdhttp://dritoday.org/post.aspx?id=eb86a38d-7b7a-4875-be2e-7b0608a46fdd1http://dritoday.org/trackback.axd?id=eb86a38d-7b7a-4875-be2e-7b0608a46fddhttp://dritoday.org/post/NFL-Attempts-to-Keep-Insurance-Coverage-Dispute-in-California.aspx#commenthttp://dritoday.org/syndication.axd?post=eb86a38d-7b7a-4875-be2e-7b0608a46fddThree (or is it Four?) Teams on This Legal Gridiron<p>With the preseason underway and the regular season right around the corner, football fans are gathering in front of their TVs and crowding stadiums across the country with copious amounts of food and drink watching the big game. &nbsp;Legal observers will have their own action to watch although this is likely to last several seasons. &nbsp; &nbsp;</p>
<div>In 2011, several former players suffering a variety of neurological disorders sued the NFL for negligence and fraud relating to whether the NFL knew and withheld that knowledge that concussions and other head injuries incurred during the playing of football could lead to long term brain damage and related side effects (no comment). &nbsp;Many of these suits received class action status and were removed to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.&nbsp;</div>
<div><br /></div>
<div>On August 13, 2012, the roster of players on this legal gridiron expanded to include the NFL&rsquo;s insurance companies. &nbsp;Alterra America Insurance Company, an excess insurance provider, filed suit in New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan seeking a declaratory judgment stating that Alterra</div>
<div><span style="white-space:pre"> </span>1)<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>does not have a duty to defend the NFL against player lawsuits</div>
<div><span style="white-space:pre"> </span>2)<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>does not have a duty to indemnify the NFL against player lawsuits</div>
<div><br /></div>
<div>Two days later, the NFL and NFL Properties filed suit against 32 insurance companies (or nearly every major insurer in the country as reported by Reuters) &nbsp;including Alterra asking the Court to require these insurers to defend and indemnify the NFL from the players&rsquo; suits. &nbsp;Why so many insurers? &nbsp;Because the NFL sued nearly every insurer that it has ever had regardless if a current business relationship currently exists. &nbsp;This is mostly a dispute about when duty to defend triggers. &nbsp;The NFL in its papers argues it&rsquo;s when the injury occurs. National Football League v. Fireman&rsquo;s Fund Insurance, BC490342, California Superior Court, Los Angeles County at 12. &nbsp;This becomes a bit of problem because different insurers insured the NFL at different times going back to 1963. Determining which injury (if only one) caused the long term damage, when that particular injury occurred and which policy was in effect at that particular time is going to be messy to say the least.&nbsp;</div>
<div><br /></div>
<div>However, the more interesting story here takes place nearly a week later. &nbsp;On August 21, Travelers&rsquo; Insurance followed &ldquo;suit&rdquo; and filed its own action against the NFL and the other insurance companies seeking a declaratory judgment with roughly the same arguments as Alterra. &nbsp;What makes this interesting is the fine distinction that Travelers&rsquo; makes in its papers which is how the other insurance companies become involved. &nbsp;</div>
<div><br /></div>
<div>Travelers' argues that its only obligation is to NFL Properties and not to the NFL itself (both the NFL and NFL Properties have been parties to these suits). &nbsp; Travelers&rsquo; argues that it never insured the NFL (whom we guess Travelers&rsquo; believes is going to take the brunt of any payout either in the form of a judgment or settlement) and therefore shouldn&rsquo;t have to bear any of the NFL&rsquo;s costs. Traveler&rsquo;s suit against the other insurance companies is a pre-emptive strike against its peers who &ldquo;may dispute Travelers&rsquo; position with respect to some or all of the foregoing matters, and make seek contribution from Travelers&rsquo; with respect to defense costs and/or indemnity paid under the policies they issued to the NFL and/or NFL Properties with respect [to the players&rsquo; law suits].&rdquo; Discovery Property &amp; Casualty Co. v. National Football League, 652933/2012, New York State Supreme Court, New York County (Manhattan) at 19.</div>
<div><br /></div>
<div>It looks like all the players are in their respective formations&hellip; and there&rsquo;s the kickoff.</div>
<div><br /></div>
<div><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt; font-family: &quot;arial&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;arial&quot;; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 9pt;">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span><span style="font-size: 9.0pt; font-family: &quot;arial&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;arial&quot;; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA;"> </span><span style="font-size: 9.0pt; font-family: &quot;arial&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;arial&quot;; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA;">Ben Berkowitz, &ldquo;NFL Sues Dozens of Insurers Over Player Injury Claims.&ldquo; <em>Reuters</em>.&nbsp; 08/16/12.&nbsp; Accessed on 08/28/12.&nbsp; Available at: <a href="http://mobile.reuters.com/article/sportsNews/idUSBRE87F0UB20120816?irpc=932." target="_blank">http://mobile.reuters.com/article/sportsNews/idUSBRE87F0UB20120816?irpc=932.</a></span></div>
<div><br /></div>
<!-- AddThis button extension by Mayank Raichura -->
<!-- AddThis Button BEGIN -->
<div stype="padding: 5px;">
<script type="text/javascript">
var addthis_pub="blogengineextensionaddthis";
</script>
<a href="http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20" onmouseover="return addthis_open(this, '', 'http://dritoday.org/post/Three-(or-is-it-Four)-Teams-on-This-Legal-Gridiron.aspx', 'Three (or is it Four?) Teams on This Legal Gridiron')" onmouseout="addthis_close()" onclick="return addthis_sendto()"><img src="http://s7.addthis.com/static/btn/sm-share-en.gif" height="16" alt="Bookmark and Share" style="border:0"/></a>
<script type="text/javascript" src="http://s7.addthis.com/js/200/addthis_widget.js"></script>
</div>
<!-- AddThis Button END -->
http://dritoday.org/post/Three-(or-is-it-Four)-Teams-on-This-Legal-Gridiron.aspx
Dan Gerber and Aaron J. Aisenhttp://dritoday.org/post/Three-(or-is-it-Four)-Teams-on-This-Legal-Gridiron.aspx#commenthttp://dritoday.org/post.aspx?id=073daf1a-f2a0-4653-99d6-4805ebeb8d01Wed, 29 Aug 2012 02:02:00 -1100Business LitigationCausationClass ActionsDamagesDefense PracticeDiscoveryEmployment/Labor LawEvidenceFraudInsurance IndustryInsurance LawLaw SuitPersonal InjurySports LawDan Gerber and Aaron J. Aisenhttp://dritoday.org/pingback.axdhttp://dritoday.org/post.aspx?id=073daf1a-f2a0-4653-99d6-4805ebeb8d010http://dritoday.org/trackback.axd?id=073daf1a-f2a0-4653-99d6-4805ebeb8d01http://dritoday.org/post/Three-(or-is-it-Four)-Teams-on-This-Legal-Gridiron.aspx#commenthttp://dritoday.org/syndication.axd?post=073daf1a-f2a0-4653-99d6-4805ebeb8d01Challenges to Penn State Consent Decree: Unlikely to Succeed in Court or Before the NCAA<p><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px; text-align: justify; ">Shortly after the NCAA&rsquo;s imposition of unprecedented sanctions against Penn State, I wrote in this space about the</span><a href="http://sports-law.blogspot.com/2012/07/done-penn-state-dispelling-due-process.html" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px; text-align: justify; ">&nbsp;</span><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica;"><span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px; text-align: justify;">myth of due process</span></span></a><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px; text-align: justify; ">&nbsp;</span><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px; text-align: justify; ">protection in the NCAA arena. Essentially, the NCAA, as a private voluntary association of member institutions, is not a state actor and is not bound by state or federal constitutional constraints.</span><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px; text-align: justify; ">&nbsp;</span><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px; text-align: justify; ">Since NCAA member institutions appear to have validated President Mark Emmert&rsquo;s unilateral punishment (through the NCAA Executive Committee and Division I Board of Directors), and Penn State consented, affected parties were left with very little recourse.</span><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px; text-align: justify; ">&nbsp;</span><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px; text-align: justify; ">Now, it appears that the Paterno family</span><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px; text-align: justify; ">&nbsp;</span><a style="font-family: arial, helvetica; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px; text-align: justify; text-decoration: none;" href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/mc-paterno-family-ncaa-sanctions-20120803,0,5578736.storyy">intends to challenge this notion</a><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px; text-align: justify; ">.</span><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px; text-align: justify; ">&nbsp;</span><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px; text-align: justify; ">For various reasons, the family is unlikely to succeed either through an administrative appeal or in court.</span></p>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: arial, helvetica; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px; text-align: justify; ">As a threshold matter, the consent decree falls completely outside the normal NCAA procedural process outlined by Article 32.&nbsp;Normally, an appeal cannot occur until a hearing has been conducted, and a decision has been rendered.&nbsp;The Paternos could conceivably circumvent the standard appeals process by arguing that the NCAA did not adhere to its own prescribed procedure, and therefore, an exception should be made allowing for an unconventional appeal as well.&nbsp;With no hearing, however, there can be no subsequent appeal of a decision based on the same.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: arial, helvetica; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px; text-align: justify; "><br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: arial, helvetica; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px; text-align: justify; ">Even assuming,&nbsp;<em>arguendo</em>, that an appeal would be permitted from a procedural standpoint, the family simply has no standing to appeal.&nbsp;Counsel for the Paterno family has stated the opposite, based on the fact that Joe Paterno&rsquo;s name is found in the Freeh Report as well as the consent decree.&nbsp;This is a misguided assertion.&nbsp;For an &ldquo;involved individual&rdquo; such as Paterno to appeal, he would have had to make an in-person appearance before the Committee on Infractions.&nbsp;Bylaw 32.10.1.2.&nbsp;To reiterate, the Committee has never been involved here.&nbsp;The standing argument on behalf of a family of an affected individual is even more attenuated, as no member of the Paterno family would even qualify as an involved individual.&nbsp;To analogize: would the NCAA allow the family of an ineligible student-athlete to bring its own appeal to the Student-Athlete Reinstatement Committee for related pecuniary or reputational damage?&nbsp;Clearly not.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: arial, helvetica; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px; text-align: justify; "><br /></div>
<div class="Style2" style="font-family: arial, helvetica; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; ">The Paterno family&rsquo;s hopes of recompense in a court of law may be equally slim.&nbsp;The Paternos may bring suit on behalf of the late Joe Paterno seeking to<span class="CharacterStyle1">prohibit the NCAA from vacating his wins, and ordering the NCAA to follow its own procedures, thereby invalidating the consent decree.&nbsp;The Paterno family could contend that the consent decree is unenforceable as a whole because it had a significant adverse impact on Paterno as a third-party affected by a decree that neither Paterno nor his family consented to.&nbsp;</span>But setting aside, for a moment, the fact that courts look with skepticism upon challenges to NCAA decisions, and separating the family&rsquo;s claim from the arguments advanced by some members of the Board of Trustees, the Paternos simply cannot show sufficient harm warranting the issuance of an injunction against enforcement of the NCAA decision.</div>
<div class="Style2" style="font-family: arial, helvetica; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; "><br /></div>
<div class="Style2" style="font-family: arial, helvetica; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; "><span class="CharacterStyle1">Pennsylvania</span><span class="CharacterStyle1">&nbsp;courts will only grant a preliminary injunction when relief is necessary to prevent immediate and irreparable harm where the aggrieved party cannot be adequately compensated by damages.&nbsp;</span><em>Summit</em><em>&nbsp;Towne Ctr., Inc. v. Shoe Show of Rocky Mount, Inc.,</em>&nbsp;786 A.2d 240 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2001).C<span class="CharacterStyle1">ourts</span>&nbsp;have defined an injunction as an extraordinary remedy that should be issued with caution.&nbsp;<em>Big Bass Lake Cmty. Ass&rsquo;n v. Warren,&nbsp;</em>950 A.2d 1137, 1144-45 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2008).</div>
<div class="Style2" style="font-family: arial, helvetica; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; "><br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: arial, helvetica; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px; text-align: justify; ">By any discernable standard, the diminution of Paterno&rsquo;s win total does not constitute a harm warranting redress, in part because Paterno&rsquo;s reputation has already been significantly tarnished by the entire ordeal, but primarily because no &ldquo;show cause&rdquo; order was ever issued against Paterno.&nbsp;If the NCAA &nbsp;had issued a show cause order as part of this major infractions case, the irreparable nature of harm would be more evident, since it would result in a loss of employment opportunity.&nbsp;See&nbsp;<em>Sanchez v. Dubois</em>, 291 F. App&rsquo;x 187 (10th Cir. 2008) (holding that since the secondary infractions case was unpublished, there was no deprivation of a liberty interest, but suggesting that a show cause order preventing employment could be sufficient).&nbsp;<em></em>But since the NCAA did not issue such an order, and given that Paterno has since passed, this argument becomes moot.&nbsp;Likewise, an equitable remedy would be unnecessary to prevent immediate future harm for the same reasons.&nbsp;Barring a successful challenge to the consent decree by the University, the Paterno family is likely going to be bound by its contents and its reputational effects.</div>
<div class="Style2" style="font-family: arial, helvetica; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; "><br /></div>
<p><span style="line-height: 18px; font-family: arial, helvetica; font-size: 14px; ">The same conclusion is likely to be reached in the&nbsp;<a style="text-decoration: none;" href="http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/PSU_trustee_appeal.pdf" target="_blank">appeal</a>&nbsp;filed by individual members of the Board of Trustees. The Board members contend that the NCAA violated their &ldquo;fundamental&rdquo; due process rights, but again, this is a misconceived notion.&nbsp;The Board members further argue that the consent decree is null and void since President Rodney Erickson lacked the legal capacity to agree to the sanctions and did not properly consult the Board.&nbsp;Even if true, this likely has no bearing on the NCAA&rsquo;s ruling, and similarly, a court would likely find that Erickson was acting with apparent or actual authority to bind the University.&nbsp;The Board may elect to take internal action against Erickson and is well within its rights to do so, but it is difficult to foresee a scenario that would result in a re-adjudication of the punishment rendered against Penn State that would produce a more favorable result for Happy Valley.&nbsp;Given the reputational damage that the University has already suffered, perhaps that is for the best.&nbsp;</span><br style="font-family: arial, helvetica; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px; " /><br style="font-family: arial, helvetica; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px; " /><span style="line-height: 18px; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; "><em>As originally published on <a href="http://www.sports-law.blogspot.com/2012/08/donechallenges-to-penn-state-consent.html" target="_blank">Sports Law Blog</a>&nbsp; Hat tip to law clerks Brian Konkel and Jane Kwak for their assistance on this piece.</em></span></p>
<!-- AddThis button extension by Mayank Raichura -->
<!-- AddThis Button BEGIN -->
<div stype="padding: 5px;">
<script type="text/javascript">
var addthis_pub="blogengineextensionaddthis";
</script>
<a href="http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20" onmouseover="return addthis_open(this, '', 'http://dritoday.org/post/Challenges-to-Penn-State-Consent-Decree-Unlikely-to-Succeed-in-Court-or-Before-the-NCAA.aspx', 'Challenges to Penn State Consent Decree: Unlikely to Succeed in Court or Before the NCAA')" onmouseout="addthis_close()" onclick="return addthis_sendto()"><img src="http://s7.addthis.com/static/btn/sm-share-en.gif" height="16" alt="Bookmark and Share" style="border:0"/></a>
<script type="text/javascript" src="http://s7.addthis.com/js/200/addthis_widget.js"></script>
</div>
<!-- AddThis Button END -->
http://dritoday.org/post/Challenges-to-Penn-State-Consent-Decree-Unlikely-to-Succeed-in-Court-or-Before-the-NCAA.aspx
Tim Epsteinhttp://dritoday.org/post/Challenges-to-Penn-State-Consent-Decree-Unlikely-to-Succeed-in-Court-or-Before-the-NCAA.aspx#commenthttp://dritoday.org/post.aspx?id=2c26bd04-ed91-4f55-af10-9e4f1714b1abWed, 08 Aug 2012 03:04:00 -1100Appellate AdvocacyCivil Justice SystemDefense PracticeFederal LawLaw SuitSports LawTim Epsteinhttp://dritoday.org/pingback.axdhttp://dritoday.org/post.aspx?id=2c26bd04-ed91-4f55-af10-9e4f1714b1ab1http://dritoday.org/trackback.axd?id=2c26bd04-ed91-4f55-af10-9e4f1714b1abhttp://dritoday.org/post/Challenges-to-Penn-State-Consent-Decree-Unlikely-to-Succeed-in-Court-or-Before-the-NCAA.aspx#commenthttp://dritoday.org/syndication.axd?post=2c26bd04-ed91-4f55-af10-9e4f1714b1abPenn State: Dispelling the "Due Process" Myth and Perceived Precedential Value Problem<p>As to whether the punishment fit the crime in the imposition of punishment on current student-athletes and coaches that had no fault here, it is difficult to equate Jerry Sandusky's heinous actions and subsequent cover-up with standard NCAA violations that go to competitive advantage. Therefore, I can see why many people are having trouble with the punishment being levied against the innocent members of the football program in Happy Valley. Let's put that aside for the moment, though, to clear away some of what I consider to be misinformation and misinterpretations of this latest NCAA headline. In addition to punishment itself, Mark Emmert's executive declaration of Penn State's punishment on Monday left many on the sidelines enraged over (1) a lack of "due process" and (2) setting a bad precedent for future NCAA enforcement matters. As to (1), "due process" is not accorded to member institutions in the NCAA process, and I do not believe that (2) should concern current and future alleged rule-breakers in standard areas of violation such as recruiting, benefits, academic eligibility, amateurism, etc.</p>
<div><br /></div>
<div>As to the due process issue, the NCAA administrative law process does not accord Federal or state constitutional due process protection for those parties that go through enforcement proceedings, be it student-athlete reinstatement (SAR) or infractions. The U.S. Supreme Court made it clear that the NCAA is not a governmental actor and thus is not obligated to provide due process. Nat&rsquo;l Collegiate Athletic Ass&rsquo;n v. Tarkanian, 488 U.S. 179, 179 (1988). The NCAA is a private association made up of members that include schools and conferences. Those schools and conferences agreed to abide by the Association rules, including potential punishments for violations of Association rules, analogous to a country club and its members. (Bylaw 3.3.4.1). Schools and conferences are voluntary members of the NCAA, and therefore must abide by the associated rules and regulations. See, Hispanic Coll. Fund, Inc. v. Nat&rsquo;l Collegiate Athletic Ass&rsquo;n, 826 N.E.2d 652 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (holding that the NCAA&rsquo;s decisions regarding organization were not subject to trial court&rsquo;s review absent allegations of fraud or illegality, because the organization was a voluntary member of NCAA). Furthermore, &ldquo;[t]he articles of incorporation and bylaws of a not-for-profit corporation are generally considered to be a contract between the corporation and its members and among the members themselves.&rdquo; Id, at 658. Therefore, member schools are under an enforceable contract with the NCAA and subject to its rules, regulations, and any punishment it may sentence. Bylaw 19.5.2 lists all the appropriate penalties for major violations, including (l): other penalties as appropriate.&nbsp;</div>
<div><br /></div>
<div>Courts have been, and remain, reluctant to accept challenges to the substance of NCAA enforcement decisions; the Oliver case being one of the few exceptions. See e.g. Justice v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass&rsquo;n, 577 F. Supp. 356 (D. Ariz. 1983) (upholding NCAA sanctions for recruiting violations and denying student-athletes&rsquo; constitutiona land antitrust claims); but see Oliver v. Natl. Collegiate Athletic Assn., 2008-Ohio-7144, 155 Ohio Misc. 2d 1, 920 N.E.2d 190. Further, membership must tread lightly in either going to court to challenge a decision or, more likely, abiding by a court ruling overturning a NCAA decision pursuant to injunctive relief sought by a student-athlete, since the NCAA reserves the right to punish a member institution should an appellate court later reverse alower court&rsquo;s ruling overturning a NCAA decision. See, e.g. Nat&rsquo;l CollegiateAthletic Ass&rsquo;n v. Jones, 1 S.W.3d 83 (Tex. 1999) (holding that the NCAA&rsquo;s appeal from an injunction granted at the trial court level was not moot as to the applicability of retroactive penalties). Challenges to the NCAA administrative law process are for when the NCAA is not following its own &ldquo;fair process.&rdquo; So, the question applicable to Penn State is whether the NCAA did, in fact, follow its own fair process.&nbsp;</div>
<div><br /></div>
<div>The fair process established by the NCAA can be found in Article 32. From start to finish, including investigations and hearings, the infractions process takes over a year in most cases. The process includes a preliminary investigation, the possibility of summary-disposition, notice of inquiry, notice of allegation, institution investigation, written responses to the allegation, hearing, final Committee report and possible appeal. For example, allegations of impermissible recruiting and student-athletes receiving benefits from professional agents at the University of South Carolina first came to light in July 2010. The Public Infractions Report was issued two years later on April 27, 2012. On the other hand, the overall process with Penn State took about nine months.&nbsp;</div>
<div><br /></div>
<div>However, with Penn State, the NCAA did not follow the infractions process established in Article 32. So, does the NCAA's failure to follow its already-established process of investigation, enforcement, hearing, deliberation, decision, and possible appeal violate the fair process that it is bound to follow? Yes and no. A "quick look" analysis reveals that punishment was delivered by the NCAA President without regard for the existing NCAA enforcement structure; something not specifically articulated in NCAA bylaws, and certainly not something for which we see any precedent. However, the only party with standing to challenge the NCAA's declaration is Penn State, and Penn State consented to this punishment; ergo we now have a moot challenge.</div>
<div><br /></div>
<div>As someone who regularly represents parties in NCAA processes, knowing what information is public thus far, if I am Penn State, I do not think going through the infractions process would have been a better process for the Penn State community. Sure, the punishments might not have been as severe, but Jerry Sandusky's actions were not just corruptions of the NCAA's principles of amateurism, competitive fairness, and academic integrity, but acts of profound evil. As such, as the infractions process drags on, Sandusky's acts and any cover-up of those acts would be continually relived. Further, there is a cost in terms of counsel like myself to be involved in the process. Let's go back to the South Carolina example. The school said that it spent $535,667.50 in connection with the NCAA investigation. Finally, as to those who believe that Penn State would find relief only at the appellate level in the infractions process, there is no guarantee that Penn State would have taken the case this far. My friend, Jerry R. Parkinson, who served as a member of the NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions from 2000 until very recently (including service as the committee&rsquo;s first coordinator of appeals), cited in a law review article that only thirty-four of the ninety major infractions cases that went to a hearing from 2000 to 2009 were appealed.&nbsp;</div>
<div><br /></div>
<div>While I believe the less controversial route would have been an expedited infractions process that would necessarily include a summary disposition (the July 12, 2012 Freeh Report helps in this regard), for the Penn State community to heal, I have to think ripping the band-aid off quickly in the manner done here with Emmert's decision yesterday, while not ideal, is preferable to a drawn out infractions process.</div>
<div><br /></div>
<div><em>Reposted with permission - orginally posted July 25, 2012 on <a href="http://sports-law.blogspot.com/2012/07/done-penn-state-dispelling-due-process.html" target="_blank">Sports Law Blog&nbsp;</a></em></div>
<div><br /></div>
<!-- AddThis button extension by Mayank Raichura -->
<!-- AddThis Button BEGIN -->
<div stype="padding: 5px;">
<script type="text/javascript">
var addthis_pub="blogengineextensionaddthis";
</script>
<a href="http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20" onmouseover="return addthis_open(this, '', 'http://dritoday.org/post/Penn-State-Dispelling-the-Due-Process-Myth-and-Perceived-Precedential-Value-Problem.aspx', 'Penn State: Dispelling the "Due Process" Myth and Perceived Precedential Value Problem')" onmouseout="addthis_close()" onclick="return addthis_sendto()"><img src="http://s7.addthis.com/static/btn/sm-share-en.gif" height="16" alt="Bookmark and Share" style="border:0"/></a>
<script type="text/javascript" src="http://s7.addthis.com/js/200/addthis_widget.js"></script>
</div>
<!-- AddThis Button END -->
http://dritoday.org/post/Penn-State-Dispelling-the-Due-Process-Myth-and-Perceived-Precedential-Value-Problem.aspx
Tim Epsteinhttp://dritoday.org/post/Penn-State-Dispelling-the-Due-Process-Myth-and-Perceived-Precedential-Value-Problem.aspx#commenthttp://dritoday.org/post.aspx?id=da9f7374-e01e-4916-963a-eb0f2daf5d0dWed, 25 Jul 2012 05:01:00 -1100Civil Justice SystemCriminal LiabilityDefense PracticeDiscoveryJudicial ProcessPerjurySports LawTim Epsteinhttp://dritoday.org/pingback.axdhttp://dritoday.org/post.aspx?id=da9f7374-e01e-4916-963a-eb0f2daf5d0d0http://dritoday.org/trackback.axd?id=da9f7374-e01e-4916-963a-eb0f2daf5d0dhttp://dritoday.org/post/Penn-State-Dispelling-the-Due-Process-Myth-and-Perceived-Precedential-Value-Problem.aspx#commenthttp://dritoday.org/syndication.axd?post=da9f7374-e01e-4916-963a-eb0f2daf5d0dConcussions Continue to Permeate the Sporting Landscape<p>The National Hockey League playoffs are underway, and the League is experiencing unprecedented media coverage as a result of the $2 billion dollar contract it signed with NBC last spring. &nbsp;But with newfound popularity, comes newfound criticism, and the tensions of playoff hockey have only exacerbated the onslaught from both players and pundits. &nbsp;Most of the commentary has centered on a perceived lack of consistency in officiating and enforcement, and of course, at the center of all of this is the League's concussion problem. &nbsp;Last week, the League office drew heat after Nashville Predator's Defenseman Shea Weber was not suspended for deliberately slamming the head of Detroit Red Wings Forward Henrik Zetterberg into the glass. &nbsp;Perhaps heeding these criticisms, the League responded this weekend with a three-game suspension for Carl Hagelin of the New York Rangers, after he elbowed the Ottawa Senators' Daniel Alfredson, causing a concussion. &nbsp;Some commended the NHL for taking a tougher stance with the Hagelin suspension, but the repercussions handed down have been widely inconsistent. &nbsp;Given that the League has been beset by concussion concerns with its biggest stars such as Sidney Crosby, and in light of the brewing litigation against the NFL by its former players, the NHL would do well to establish a consistent and strict policy with respect to blows to the head.</p>
<div>Meanwhile in the NFL, yet another concussion related lawsuit was filed Monday on behalf of four former players in Atlanta. &nbsp;What makes this suit distinct from the 58 suits that have already been filed, however, is that this complaint is the first to make specific reference to "bounty-gate." &nbsp;The lawsuit references the scandal as just another example of the League's indolence in dealing with the realities of head trauma. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the NFL "explicitly relied on violence" and neglected to educate players on the dangers of concussions.</div>
<div><br /></div>
<div>Linking the bounty scandal to the ongoing concussion litigation was inevitable, but it is unlikely to be a game changer from a legal standpoint. From a public relations perspective, allegations related to bounties certainly creates a buzz, but ultimately, the scandal will offer little in the way of proving the League's negligence. First, there is little proof, at least at this point, that the League was aware of bounties occurring, and even less evidence suggesting that the problem is pervasive. &nbsp;Additionally, unless the individual plaintiffs claim to have been directly affected by the scheme, the causal link is missing. &nbsp;In fact, the four plaintiffs in this new suit merely state that the bounty system is indicative of a culture of violence. &nbsp;But professional football is inherently violent, and without a showing that the League's policy in regards to bounty systems rendered the sport unreasonably dangerous, the allegations referencing the bounty system will do little more than draw more attention to the issue. &nbsp;Regardless of the potency of these allegations, look for more suits to be filed, and expect those complaints to mirror this one.</div>
<div><br /></div>
<div><em>Thank you to Brian Konkel, Law Clerk at SmithAmundsen for his work on this piece.</em></div>
<!-- AddThis button extension by Mayank Raichura -->
<!-- AddThis Button BEGIN -->
<div stype="padding: 5px;">
<script type="text/javascript">
var addthis_pub="blogengineextensionaddthis";
</script>
<a href="http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20" onmouseover="return addthis_open(this, '', 'http://dritoday.org/post/Concussions-Continue-to-Permeate-the-Sporting-Landscape.aspx', 'Concussions Continue to Permeate the Sporting Landscape')" onmouseout="addthis_close()" onclick="return addthis_sendto()"><img src="http://s7.addthis.com/static/btn/sm-share-en.gif" height="16" alt="Bookmark and Share" style="border:0"/></a>
<script type="text/javascript" src="http://s7.addthis.com/js/200/addthis_widget.js"></script>
</div>
<!-- AddThis Button END -->
http://dritoday.org/post/Concussions-Continue-to-Permeate-the-Sporting-Landscape.aspx
Tim Epsteinhttp://dritoday.org/post/Concussions-Continue-to-Permeate-the-Sporting-Landscape.aspx#commenthttp://dritoday.org/post.aspx?id=8bbda68b-9539-45ec-9768-9886ef5b7eb6Thu, 19 Apr 2012 01:58:00 -1100Commercial LitigationDefense PracticeEmployment/Labor LawSports LawTechnologyTim Epsteinhttp://dritoday.org/pingback.axdhttp://dritoday.org/post.aspx?id=8bbda68b-9539-45ec-9768-9886ef5b7eb66http://dritoday.org/trackback.axd?id=8bbda68b-9539-45ec-9768-9886ef5b7eb6http://dritoday.org/post/Concussions-Continue-to-Permeate-the-Sporting-Landscape.aspx#commenthttp://dritoday.org/syndication.axd?post=8bbda68b-9539-45ec-9768-9886ef5b7eb6Williams' Words: Audio Affect on Saints Sanctions<p>The release of this audio recording raises numerous issues. &nbsp;Williams' career was already in serious jeopardy prior to the release of this recording, but now, he is virtually un-employable. &nbsp;His rhetoric and tone exceed that which would be considered normal locker room speak, and leaves little doubt that bounties were indeed taking place. Williams called for specific injuries to numerous San Francisco players, even suggesting players should attempt to go for the head of concussion-prone wide receiver Kyle Williams. &nbsp;With the multitude of lawsuits already filed against the NFL related to concussion issues, this is pretty damning for Williams, the Saints, and the League as a whole. &nbsp;It is possible, and perhaps even likely, that Commissioner Goodell could turn Williams' current indefinite suspension into a lifetime ban. &nbsp;It seems as though Goodell has ample evidence to do so at this point, and he may need to take such a step to remain consistent with the NFL's present crusade in support of player safety. &nbsp;</p>
<p>To that end, Goodell clearly has authority to discipline Williams, consistent with the NFL's Standard of Conduct:&nbsp;</p>
<div><strong>Standard of Conduct</strong></div>
<div><br /></div>
<div>While criminal activity is clearly outside the scope of permissible conduct, and persons who engage in criminal activity will be subject to discipline, the standard of conduct for persons employed in the NFL is considerably higher. It is not enough simply to avoid being found guilty of a crime.</div>
<div><br /></div>
<div><strong>Discipline may be imposed in any of the following circumstances:</strong></div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>Conduct that imposes inherent danger to the safety and well being of another person; and</li>
<li>Conduct that undermines or puts at risk the integrity and reputation of the NFL, NFL clubs, or NFL players.</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div>It will also be interesting to see if this audio recording affects the ongoing appeal of Head Coach Sean Payton. &nbsp;Payton's chances of succeeding on appeal of his year-long suspension were probably slim before this recording, but in light of the public outcry, it seems certain that Goodell will uphold Payton's suspension. If Payton was in the room during this speech (it appears that he was not at this point), and knew of the bounties (which he has admitted), he had a duty to report Williams and others involved, even if he did not partake in the scheme himself. &nbsp;Goodell can fall back on the NFL's Standard of Conduct in this regard as well:&nbsp;</div>
<div><br /></div>
<div><strong>Reporting of Incidents: </strong>The League must be advised promptly of any incident that may be a violation of this policy, and particularly when any conduct results in an arrest or other criminal charge. &nbsp;Players and club employees must report any such incident to the club, which must then report it to NFL Security at (800) NFL-1099. Failure to report an incident will constitute conduct detrimental and will be taken into consideration in making disciplinary determination under this policy. Clubs are also required to report incidents that come to their attention.</div>
<div><br /></div>
<div>Another interesting issue that could trigger litigation is the fact that this audio recording was allegedly not authorized for release. &nbsp;This recording was captured during filmmaker Sean Pamphilon's work on an ESPN documentary entitled, "Run Ricky Run," which chronicled former Saints player Steve Gleason's fight with Lou Gehrig's disease. &nbsp;However, Gleason, who expressed regret and disappointment over the release of the recording, apparently owns the rights to all recordings compiled during the filming. &nbsp;Gleason conceivably could bring an action against Pamphilon for the unauthorized release, though it could be difficult for Gleason to prove damages, given the circumstances.&nbsp;</div>
<div><br /></div>
<!-- AddThis button extension by Mayank Raichura -->
<!-- AddThis Button BEGIN -->
<div stype="padding: 5px;">
<script type="text/javascript">
var addthis_pub="blogengineextensionaddthis";
</script>
<a href="http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20" onmouseover="return addthis_open(this, '', 'http://dritoday.org/post/Williams-Words-Audio-Affect-on-Saints-Sanctions.aspx', 'Williams' Words: Audio Affect on Saints Sanctions')" onmouseout="addthis_close()" onclick="return addthis_sendto()"><img src="http://s7.addthis.com/static/btn/sm-share-en.gif" height="16" alt="Bookmark and Share" style="border:0"/></a>
<script type="text/javascript" src="http://s7.addthis.com/js/200/addthis_widget.js"></script>
</div>
<!-- AddThis Button END -->
http://dritoday.org/post/Williams-Words-Audio-Affect-on-Saints-Sanctions.aspx
Tim Epsteinhttp://dritoday.org/post/Williams-Words-Audio-Affect-on-Saints-Sanctions.aspx#commenthttp://dritoday.org/post.aspx?id=357a49f6-b41e-446b-8812-6939e3bb788eTue, 10 Apr 2012 08:02:00 -1100Law SuitLegal HoldsMedical LiabilityPersonal InjurySports LawTim Epsteinhttp://dritoday.org/pingback.axdhttp://dritoday.org/post.aspx?id=357a49f6-b41e-446b-8812-6939e3bb788e0http://dritoday.org/trackback.axd?id=357a49f6-b41e-446b-8812-6939e3bb788ehttp://dritoday.org/post/Williams-Words-Audio-Affect-on-Saints-Sanctions.aspx#commenthttp://dritoday.org/syndication.axd?post=357a49f6-b41e-446b-8812-6939e3bb788eNike Seeks to Unravel Reebok’s Tebow-Jets Jersey Sales<p>The smooth transition of NFL jersey production responsibilities from Reebok to Nike hit a snag this week with the filing of a lawsuit by Nike against its rival. Nike filed <a href="http://adage.com/article/adages/nike-sues-reebok-sale-jets-tebow-jerseys/233759/" target="_blank">suit </a>in federal court against Reebok over Reebok&rsquo;s swift production of Tim Tebow-New York Jets jerseys after Tebow&rsquo;s trade to the Jets. The trade announcement on March 21st left an extremely tight window of time for Reebok to capitalize on the deal before its contract with the NFL expires on April 1, 2012. &nbsp;</p>
<div>While Reebok&rsquo;s deal with the NFL is technically still in place until April 1, Nike alleges that the jerseys are not valid licensed merchandise as authentic jerseys require two license agreements &ndash; one with the NFL to use its marks and one with the NFLPA (National Football League Players Association) or the individual player to use a specific players name. &nbsp;Nike has had an endorsement deal with Tebow in place since his graduation from the University of Florida in 2010. &nbsp;In appears that in this case, Reebok does not have a deal with either the NFLPA or Tebow that would allow it to use his name on its jerseys.</div>
<div><br /></div>
<div>With the April 3rd premier of Nike&rsquo;s NFL jersey collection quickly approaching, Nike asserts that Reebok&rsquo;s hastily produced Tebow-Jets jerseys will negatively impact the demand for new Tebow-Jets apparel that has been steadily growing since the trade was announced. Nike is seeking injunctive relief to stop the sales of the jerseys along with the compensatory and punitive damages. &nbsp;While being first to market may earn Reebok a quick profit in this situation, if the Court decides in Nike&rsquo;s favor, the quick move could end up being a costly one.&nbsp;</div>
<div><br /></div>
<div>On Friday, March 30, Reebok was ordered to stop producing the jerseys.</div>
<div><br /></div>
<!-- AddThis button extension by Mayank Raichura -->
<!-- AddThis Button BEGIN -->
<div stype="padding: 5px;">
<script type="text/javascript">
var addthis_pub="blogengineextensionaddthis";
</script>
<a href="http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20" onmouseover="return addthis_open(this, '', 'http://dritoday.org/post/Nike-Seeks-to-Unravel-Reeboke28099s-Tebow-Jets-Jersey-Sales.aspx', 'Nike Seeks to Unravel Reebok’s Tebow-Jets Jersey Sales')" onmouseout="addthis_close()" onclick="return addthis_sendto()"><img src="http://s7.addthis.com/static/btn/sm-share-en.gif" height="16" alt="Bookmark and Share" style="border:0"/></a>
<script type="text/javascript" src="http://s7.addthis.com/js/200/addthis_widget.js"></script>
</div>
<!-- AddThis Button END -->
http://dritoday.org/post/Nike-Seeks-to-Unravel-Reeboke28099s-Tebow-Jets-Jersey-Sales.aspx
Joseph M. Hannahttp://dritoday.org/post/Nike-Seeks-to-Unravel-Reeboke28099s-Tebow-Jets-Jersey-Sales.aspx#commenthttp://dritoday.org/post.aspx?id=3ab2c3bf-d4ba-4124-9642-8acdb354bb26Mon, 02 Apr 2012 02:21:00 -1100Civil Justice SystemCommercial LitigationCopyright infringementCorporate AmericaDefense PracticeIntellectual PropertyLaw SuitMarketingMediaSports LawJoseph M. Hannahttp://dritoday.org/pingback.axdhttp://dritoday.org/post.aspx?id=3ab2c3bf-d4ba-4124-9642-8acdb354bb261http://dritoday.org/trackback.axd?id=3ab2c3bf-d4ba-4124-9642-8acdb354bb26http://dritoday.org/post/Nike-Seeks-to-Unravel-Reeboke28099s-Tebow-Jets-Jersey-Sales.aspx#commenthttp://dritoday.org/syndication.axd?post=3ab2c3bf-d4ba-4124-9642-8acdb354bb26Beating Suit Against Dodgers Likely to Survive Team Bankruptcy<p><span style="text-align: justify; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">On March 31</span><span style="text-align: justify; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 11px;">&nbsp;</span><span style="font-size: 10pt;">of last year, San Francisco Giants fan Brian Stow allegedly was attacked and&nbsp; sucker-punched by two L.A. Dodgers fans after an opening-day game between the two clubs at Dodgers Stadium.&nbsp; His head hit the pavement, leaving Stow </span></span><span style="text-align: justify; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;" lang="EN">with a fractured skull and brain trauma.&nbsp; Doctors placed him in a medically-induced coma for several months.&nbsp; </span><span style="text-align: justify; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">According to Stow&rsquo;s attorneys, the attack has left Stow with permanent brain injury and severely limited &nbsp;movement.&nbsp; Today, he is wheelchair-bound and reportedly will require 24-hour nursing care for the rest of his life.&nbsp; Only recently has he begun to write and try to speak.&nbsp; A former paramedic, he is unable to support himself or his family.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; text-align: justify;">In May, Stow filed suit in Los Angeles Superior Court seeking $50M in damages against the Dodgers, Dodgers owner Frank McCourt, and several others.&nbsp; Stow asserts that the Dodgers were negligent, among other reasons, for failing to provide adequate security, failing to provide adequate lighting, and promoting a half-off beer sale that promoted violence.&nbsp; He also claims that the Dodgers fired 300 security staff shortly before the assault, and he submitted sworn declarations from eight other Giants fans alleging that they had difficulty in finding security personnel to respond to threats against them during the game.&nbsp; He also argues that one of Stow&rsquo;s assailants was involved in two prior incidents that day and that the Dodgers should have ejected him from the ballpark hours before he attacked Stow.&nbsp; Many people online report a long-term tolerance by the Dodgers of a significant &ldquo;thuggish&rdquo; element at the ballpark.&nbsp;</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; text-align: justify;">In opposition, the Dodgers have argued that stadium security was at record levels on opening day and that they had no way to anticipate the attack.&nbsp; Further, they deny any half-off beer promotion.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; font-family: &quot;Arial&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;">In June, the Dodgers filed for bankruptcy in Delaware, resulting in a stay of the L.A. case.&nbsp; </span><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;" lang="EN">Under a reorganization plan filed by the Dodgers, et al., McCourt and other Dodgers officials would be released from legal liability for any actions they took in their official capacity as team representatives that may have contributed to Stow&rsquo;s injuries.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; text-align: justify;">On February 3</span><sup style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; text-align: justify;">rd</sup><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; text-align: justify;"> of this year, the Dodgers moved in the Bankruptcy Court for a motion disallowing all of Stow&rsquo;s claims, arguing that Stow cannot win the L.A. case as a matter of law because Stow cannot prove a link between security issues and the beating.&nbsp; In response, Stow&rsquo;s counsel has asked the Bankruptcy Court to yield to Los Angeles Superior Court.&nbsp;</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;" lang="EN">For several&nbsp; reasons, the Bankruptcy Court is likely to allow the L.A. suit to run its course:&nbsp; First, the case has obtained nationwide attention, and federal judges are not immune from media-generated pressure.&nbsp; If the court stops the L.A. action, some will claim that the court hijacked the jury-trial process.&nbsp; Second, the Dodgers recently disclosed documents establishing the existence of insurance of over $300M, which is more than enough for a verdict in favor of Stow.&nbsp; Third, the Dodger bankruptcy is unusual in that the owners will be flush with money after reorganization.&nbsp; Reports cite many interested buyers, with a predicted sale price as high as $2 billion for the franchise.&nbsp; Finally, the Dodgers reportedly have admitted that, in all likelihood, </span><span style="font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; font-family: &quot;Arial&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;; mso-ansi-language: EN;" lang="EN">all creditors will be paid in full from sale proceeds from the sale.&nbsp; &nbsp;Bankruptcy judge Kevin Gross already has hinted at the likely outcome, noting that </span><span style="font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; font-family: &quot;Arial&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;">the Dodgers will have a considerable task in convincing him "that there are absolutely, positively no facts that could result in liability under California law."&nbsp; Hearings on the matter are scheduled for March 7<sup>th</sup> and March 21<sup>st</sup>.&nbsp;&nbsp; A hearing regarding the proposed reorganization plan is set for April 13<sup>th</sup>, and sale of the franchise is scheduled for April 30<sup>th</sup>.&nbsp;</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; font-family: &quot;Arial&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;">&nbsp;</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; mso-pagination: none;"><em><span style="font-size: 9.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 9.0pt; font-family: &quot;Arial&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;">Bill Staar is a partner in the Boston office of Morrison Mahoney LLP, Chair of DRI's Sports Law &amp; Entertainment Group, and a member of the Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association&rsquo;s Legal Task Force.&nbsp; He concentrates in the areas of product liability, construction disputes, toxic torts, and general business litigation. He also is a member of DRI's Product Liability, Commercial Litigation, and Construction Law Committees.</span></em></p>
<p class="MMMFlushSingle" style="text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; font-family: &quot;Arial&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;">&nbsp;</span></p>
<!-- AddThis button extension by Mayank Raichura -->
<!-- AddThis Button BEGIN -->
<div stype="padding: 5px;">
<script type="text/javascript">
var addthis_pub="blogengineextensionaddthis";
</script>
<a href="http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20" onmouseover="return addthis_open(this, '', 'http://dritoday.org/post/Beating-Suit-Against-Dodgers-Likely-to-Survive-Team-Bankruptcy.aspx', 'Beating Suit Against Dodgers Likely to Survive Team Bankruptcy')" onmouseout="addthis_close()" onclick="return addthis_sendto()"><img src="http://s7.addthis.com/static/btn/sm-share-en.gif" height="16" alt="Bookmark and Share" style="border:0"/></a>
<script type="text/javascript" src="http://s7.addthis.com/js/200/addthis_widget.js"></script>
</div>
<!-- AddThis Button END -->
http://dritoday.org/post/Beating-Suit-Against-Dodgers-Likely-to-Survive-Team-Bankruptcy.aspx
Bill Staarhttp://dritoday.org/post/Beating-Suit-Against-Dodgers-Likely-to-Survive-Team-Bankruptcy.aspx#commenthttp://dritoday.org/post.aspx?id=1f6def22-c124-49dc-90ad-c5ba010049b9Thu, 01 Mar 2012 01:56:00 -1100Civil Justice SystemCourt of AppealsLaw SuitSports LawBill Staarhttp://dritoday.org/pingback.axdhttp://dritoday.org/post.aspx?id=1f6def22-c124-49dc-90ad-c5ba010049b90http://dritoday.org/trackback.axd?id=1f6def22-c124-49dc-90ad-c5ba010049b9http://dritoday.org/post/Beating-Suit-Against-Dodgers-Likely-to-Survive-Team-Bankruptcy.aspx#commenthttp://dritoday.org/syndication.axd?post=1f6def22-c124-49dc-90ad-c5ba010049b9CPSC May Get New Commissioner: President Obama Nominates Marietta Robinson to Fill Moore's Seat<p>When Consumer Product Safety Commissioner Thomas Moore retired in October 2011 after serving three terms, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) was split evenly along party lines.&nbsp; &nbsp;There were two republicans, Nancy Nord and Anne Northup, and two democrats, Robert Adler and Chairman Inez Tenenbaum.&nbsp; Now it seems President Obama's nomination of democrat Marietta Robinson will again give democrats the edge.&nbsp;</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Marietta Robinson has been a trial lawyer in Michigan for thirty three years, representing both plaintiffs and defendants.&nbsp;&nbsp; Additionally, for eight years Robinson served as the federally appointed trustee of the Dalkon Shield Trust, a trust that paid billions to women who used the Dalkon Shield contraceptive.&nbsp; Robinson threw her hat in the ring for a seat on the Michigan Supreme Court in 2000 and 2002.&nbsp;</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The CPSC works to "protect the public against unreasonable risks of injury associated with consumer products."&nbsp; CPSC Commissioners are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate.&nbsp; Robinson told the Washington Post that she was honored to be nominated and hoped to get through Senate confirmation quickly.&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;</p>
<!-- AddThis button extension by Mayank Raichura -->
<!-- AddThis Button BEGIN -->
<div stype="padding: 5px;">
<script type="text/javascript">
var addthis_pub="blogengineextensionaddthis";
</script>
<a href="http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20" onmouseover="return addthis_open(this, '', 'http://dritoday.org/post/CPSC-May-Get-New-Commissioner-President-Obama-Nominates-Marietta-Robinson-to-Fill-Moores-Seat.aspx', 'CPSC May Get New Commissioner: President Obama Nominates Marietta Robinson to Fill Moore's Seat')" onmouseout="addthis_close()" onclick="return addthis_sendto()"><img src="http://s7.addthis.com/static/btn/sm-share-en.gif" height="16" alt="Bookmark and Share" style="border:0"/></a>
<script type="text/javascript" src="http://s7.addthis.com/js/200/addthis_widget.js"></script>
</div>
<!-- AddThis Button END -->
http://dritoday.org/post/CPSC-May-Get-New-Commissioner-President-Obama-Nominates-Marietta-Robinson-to-Fill-Moores-Seat.aspx
William F. Auther and Kelly McInroyhttp://dritoday.org/post/CPSC-May-Get-New-Commissioner-President-Obama-Nominates-Marietta-Robinson-to-Fill-Moores-Seat.aspx#commenthttp://dritoday.org/post.aspx?id=e4ae4cf1-9dfa-40ef-975a-e1a41140da53Tue, 21 Feb 2012 01:48:00 -1100Class ActionsDefense PracticeDiscoveryElectronic DiscoveryPreemptionProduct LiabilitySports LawTortsWilliam F. Auther and Kelly McInroyhttp://dritoday.org/pingback.axdhttp://dritoday.org/post.aspx?id=e4ae4cf1-9dfa-40ef-975a-e1a41140da530http://dritoday.org/trackback.axd?id=e4ae4cf1-9dfa-40ef-975a-e1a41140da53http://dritoday.org/post/CPSC-May-Get-New-Commissioner-President-Obama-Nominates-Marietta-Robinson-to-Fill-Moores-Seat.aspx#commenthttp://dritoday.org/syndication.axd?post=e4ae4cf1-9dfa-40ef-975a-e1a41140da53